social capital Interpersonal networks that provide people with resources or status, which they can exploit in other areas of social life and
potentially leverage in the pursuit of economic or cultural capital. The principal example is educational accomplishment. Pierre
Bourdieu defines social capital as “the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (“The Forms of Capital,” 1985). Families and communities are
generally the levels on which social capital is constructed. Communities of professional or social elites make different resources
available than working-class or ethnic communities. The concept of social capital has attracted considerable attention from contemporary
social scientists, partly due to the influence of Bourdieu's writings on the reproduction of various forms of capital and partly because of
its affinities with existing sociological concepts and theories, such as social resources, social exchange, and social networks.
The idea of social capital has been linked more generally to the notion of noneconomic resources. While Bourdieu's research has focused
on strategies of accumulation of capital and the reproduction of inequality, others have treated social capital as a basis for social
solidarity and as a collective resource that makes trust possible—as in Robert Putnam and Francis Fukuyama's account of community
and civil society. In these conceptions, social capital is neither possessed nor accumulated by individuals but rather is held by a social
group. Social capital is thus envisioned as a productive variable that facilitates development and democracy. James Coleman has sought
to bridge the two sorts of accounts through rational-choice theory. Social capital has also been brought to bear on the question of family
support and on benefits mediated by extrafamilial networks. As Alejandro Portes recently noted, there may be negative consequences of
social capital, including restricted access to opportunities, restrictions on individual freedoms, excessive claims on group members, and
downward-leveling norms.
social capital A concept devised by James Coleman, used to describe the types of relations that exist between individuals as located
within both families and communities, and which are said to exert a strong influence on levels of educational achievement (see James S.
Coleman and Thomas Hoffer, Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities, 1987). The concept parallels those of
physical and human capital in economics. Coleman and Hoffer argued that deficiencies in social capital–such as would follow from
single-parenthood, decreased parental involvement with the child or with family activities, and low levels of interaction between adults
and especially parents in local communities–were detrimental to development in adolescence.
Coleman maintained that ‘the social capital for a young person's development resides in the functional community, the actual social
relationships that exist among parents, in the closure exhibited by this structure of relations, and in the parent's relations with the
institutions of the community. Part of that social capital is the set of norms that develop in communities with a high degree of closure’.
Closed networks, giving rise to functional communities, foster among children living therein such things as conformity to school norms,
an interest in academic matters, and avoidance of deviance. Lack of interaction between parents and children, and between parents and
other adults, fosters open networks, lack of communication, lack of adherence to and enforcement of norms and of family control, all of
which reduces the probability of building up human capital and increases opportunities for deviant behaviour.
It has been suggested that this argument represents a significant shift in Coleman's thinking about academic socialization from his earlier
work. In his classic The Adolescent Society (1961), Coleman stresses the importance for adolescence and educational achievement of the
youth cultures within schools, whereas the concept of social capital emphasized the out-of-school influence of the family as it interacts
with the larger community. However, it has also been observed that it is possible to marry the two accounts, by considering the
possibility that social capital (lack of parental monitoring, the decision to reside in particular neighbourhoods, and to establish ties with
some but not other types of parents and institutions in the local community) exerts an indirect influence on peer-group selection among
children; that is, that social capital is an indirect determinant of the subcultures in which young people become involved, both in the
community and at school.
social capital Social capital refers to the social networks, systems of reciprocal relations, sets of norms, or levels of trust that individuals
or groups may have, or to the resources arising from them. Its recent popularity can be traced to three authors—Pierre Bourdieu (1930–
2002), James Coleman, and Robert Putnam—each of whom has a distinctive conception of social capital.
Bourdieu discusses a range of different kinds of capital (economic, cultural, social) which interrelate and may substitute for one another.
In his later work, social capital is identified as the actual or potential resources which arise from being part of a network of relationships
of mutual acquaintance and recognition. Bourdieu was chiefly concerned with the way in which powerful elites retained their privilege.
Coleman's conception of social capital arose out of his empirical work in the 1980s examining the links between social disadvantage,
community, and schooling. His claim is that children who are part of a group with high social capital (for example, a Catholic school),
have better educational outcomes, even in the context of social disadvantage. More generally, he defined social capital as the set of
resources which are inherent in a group (for example, a family or a community organization), and which facilitate certain actions of
members of the group (for example, social and cognitive development of a child).
For Putnam, social capital refers to three features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—which enable participants to function more
effectively in pursuing a common goal. In his much-quoted study Bowling Alone (2000), he documents the decline in civic engagement
in the United States and points the finger of blame at the rise in television viewing. He also seeks to show that high levels of social
capital are associated with a range of desirable societal outcomes, such as economic prosperity and low crime rates.
The relationship between social capital and human capital is unclear. Human capital is a concept used by economists and often measured
by duration of schooling and labour market experience, or by educational qualifications. One interpretation holds that human capital is a
private good (i.e. the benefits accrue largely to the individual), while social capital is a public or collective good (i.e. it is an attribute of a
group). Another interpretation, not inconsistent with the first, is that the two forms of capital are complementary: high levels of human
capital generate social capital, and social capital promotes acquisition of human capital.
Opinion is divided as to whether social capital is always positive. From the perspective of wider society, some forms of social capital are
clearly damaging (for example, the Mafia), while others are a barrier to equal opportunities (for example, old boys' networks). Even
these forms of social capital may, however, be beneficial for those who possess them.
Empirical evidence on the role of social capital in society is thin, although attempts to operationalize the concept are becoming more
widespread. Meanwhile, the rich theoretical apparatus of writing on social capital seems to generate more controversies than it resolves.
This may be because it is a ‘broad church’, able to accommodate diverse political perspectives. Neoliberals in the World Bank can
champion social capital as the missing link between free markets and economic growth, communitarians can point to the necessity of
social capital for the maintenance of the social fabric, while radical egalitarians can argue that the destruction of social capital is yet
another manifestation of the alienation inherent in capitalist society.
Source: The Oxford Reference Dictionary online